By a like treaty, friendly in character and long discussed, we arranged that there should be a collective difference of four hundred francs between the expenditure for all parts of the dress on a war footing, and for that on a peace footing.  This provision was considered very paltry by all the powers, masculine or feminine, whom we consulted.  The light thrown upon these delicate matters by the contributions of certain persons suggested to us the idea of gathering together certain savants at a dinner party, and taking their wise counsels for our guidance in these important investigations.  The gathering took place.  It was with glass in hand and after listening to many brilliant speeches that I received for the following chapters on the budget of love, a sort of legislative sanction.  The sum of one hundred francs was allowed for porters and carriages.  Fifty crowns seemed very reasonable for the little patties that people eat on a walk, for bouquets of violets and theatre tickets.  The sum of two hundred francs was considered necessary for the extra expense of dainties and dinners at restaurants.  It was during this discussion that a young cavalryman, who had been made almost tipsy by the champagne, was called to order for comparing lovers to distilling machines.  But the chapter that gave occasion for the most violent discussion, and the consideration of which was adjourned for several weeks, when a report was made, was that concerning presents.  At the last session, the refined Madame de D----- was the first speaker; and in a graceful address, which testified to the nobility of her sentiments, she set out to demonstrate that most of the time the gifts of love had no intrinsic value.  The author replied that all lovers had their portraits taken.  A lady objected that a portrait was invested capital, and care should always be taken to recover it for a second investment.  But suddenly a gentleman of Provence rose to deliver a philippic against women.  He spoke of the greediness which most women in love exhibited for furs, satins, silks, jewels and furniture; but a lady interrupted him by asking if Madame d’O-----y, his intimate friend, had not already paid his debts twice over.

“You are mistaken, madame,” said the Provencal, “it was her husband.”

“The speaker is called to order,” cried the president, “and condemned to dine the whole party, for having used the word husband.”

The Provencal was completely refuted by a lady who undertook to prove that women show much more self-sacrifice in love than men; that lovers cost very dear, and that the honest woman may consider herself very fortunate if she gets off with spending on them two thousand francs for a single year.  The discussion was in danger of degenerating into an exchange of personalities, when a division was called for.  The conclusions of the committee were adopted by vote.  The conclusions were, in substance, that the amount for presents between